On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:00:17 +0100, Josh Boyer wrote: > So are you not orphaning libunwind until that is merged into the > upstream kernel? To get the terminology right: I am 'orphaning' it now. Later it may be 'obsolsted'. If I should keep it formally maintaining I could. But factically it won't change what I really do with the libunwind package. I have not fixed any libunwind bug since 2009 and there is no one filed in RH BZ now; except https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863781 rebase to 1.1 which I do not find meaningful for Fedora anymore, at least not from my perspective. I know about too many bugs in libunwind and I have found it easier to rather reimplement the remaining few bits of elfutils so that elfutils can unwind on its own. > What about perf releases that support libunwind in older Fedora > releases? Will you wait until all of those have been rebased? As I said I have not fixed anything in libunwind for the past 3 years and also I have even never found the non-ia64 part of libunwind meaningful before. I can write my name into pkgdb ownership field back if you wish so. > If perf winds up getting stuck relying on an orphaned library for some > non-trivial amount of time, AFAIK that is common in Fedora there are orphaned libraries in use for a release or two. > I'd rather just turn off libunwind support in perf now. It's only enabled > in rawhide at the moment because it is a 3.7 feature. Before we bring 3.7 > back to f17-f18, we should probably decide. That is more a question to Jiri Olsa, the author of perf libunwind client. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
